Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Sixty-five per cent of the survivors who tried to tell a therapist, doctor, teacher or other professional were not believed the first time they disclosed. Overall, 86% of those who tried to tell anyone were not believed the first time they disclosed.

To me, this is the really disturbing part, and a real problem -- societal attitudes cause victims of abuse by women to be disproportionately disbelieved.

Exactly. So we end up with figures used to claim domestic violence and sexual violence is almost an exclusive male on female problem because men arent given any support to come forward. That is why you have Erin Pizzey hand waved earlier in the thread, saying she couldnt get any funding or support for male victims in domestic violence because it was and is still denied as a problem and no one wanted to accept that women could be just as, if not more, violent and abusive.

Btw, its Dr Michele Elliot, not Michael. In case anyone thinks she is just some random women writing about something she isnt qualified in, she's a OBE psychologist that has worked in the field for a long time. Her work into the awareness of female abusers has apparently been well received in her expert community.

I'll also add a few more links in regards to the whole domestic violence/female violence issue to the ones I already have provided. The quotes I give aren't always the meat of it, so dont assume that my quote is the most important part.

That female correctional staff commit a significant proportion of that sexual abuse is met with discomfort bordering on disbelief. This discomfort has limited the discourse about female correctional workers who abuse men or boys under their care.... Ultimately, this Article confronts our discomfort with and reluctance to acknowledge the fact that women sexually abuse men
and boys in custody, and it offers possible explanations for these behaviors.... The reluctance to label female sexual violence against males as rape or assault is also shaped in part by views about dominant male sexuality and passive female sexuality. Sexual crimes committed by women are minimized, partially because they are often seen as sexual in nature, rather than as violent. This is true even when the perpetrating female is much older than the male victim, as in the case of female staff who abuse juveniles in custody

Criticisms of the treatment of domestic violence in society as an almost exclusive male on female problem and the misrepresentation of data typically used to do that.

Quote:

...Despite these writings, the prevailing conceptualization of PV remains that it is primarily a male crime and that the few women who do perpetrate PV do so almost exclusively in self-defense or in retaliation for a long history of victimization. Because of this conceptualization, it is necessary to present the evidence on symmetry in perpetration rate, motivation and risk factors for partner violence before moving on to explanations for the misperception and the implications of the misperception for designing more effective modes of prevention and treatment of PV. ....Several studies, including large and nationally representative samples, have found that that the most prevalent pattern is mutual violence, and that female-only violence is as prevalent as, or more prevalent than, maleonly violence. This is true even for severe partner violence such kicking, attacks with objects, choking...

There's a lot more studies out there like this that show women are at least as, or more, violent than men but public perception of female violence is consistently minimised and denied in various ways and even accepted. It should be clear by now that if you put things like this or this from a mainstream talk show (and again here) into context you can see that it is part of a much larger problem.

Remember my position on the previous page:

My position is that there are so many things that show there is a bias toward women particularly at the expense of men, and that issues concerning men as a whole are more likely to go unnoticed, trivialised or mocked.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Now, I do hope that like Erin Pizzey she is not also dismissed out of hand simply because the interview was conducted by an MRA.

BTW news articles like this written in mainstream newspapers is a result of this bias toward minimising the abuse from women. Barbara Ellen's justification for why a female teacher who had sex with a 15-year-old male pupil doesnt deserve jail and why its "different" if its the other way around, is exactly the mind of mindset that these sources I've been quoting have been saying about how this has become such a problem.

I've lost what any of this has to do with Watson's arguments. Not that it isn't interesting.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

It appears to have been converted into an all-out "men's rights" thread, so I guess at least one of RW's allegations has been confirmed.

__________________“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”—Mark Twain

Why wouldnt the subject turn to this? Watson and her supporters are part of a community that wants to justify their fear of men. You cant do that without bringing up the distorted rape and domestic violence statistics, you cant do that without bringing up Schrodinger's Rapist or some variation thereof. Again, the entire drama here is to justify their fear as reasonable because if they cannot justify the fear is reasonable then their fear is merely irrational and paranoid and shouldn't be taken seriously and they know it. Their rationale is built on a house of cards that easily tumbles once you give it the slightest scrutiny, let alone dig into the problem of just how much fear mongering there is against men towards rape and domestic violence in our society and how deep that goes. That there has been for years an effort to broaden the definition of rape more and more and water down the definition of domestic violence so it can include more women so their statistics for how many women are victims goes up and therefore people like Watson can quote them to justify their fear, but fail to acknowledge that by doing so they are even further ignoring and marginalising the abuse of men from women that is just as bad if not worse in various ways. This is why she twisted the joke tweet mocking her in her Slate article into a serious threat of assault, with not even a hint of a possibility acknowledging that he might not have been serious. That is why she claims hate mail she gets are "rape threats" when most of all of them, while not nice, are not "rape threats" which their own communities logic and behaviour proves. That is why she claimed Dawkins is a misogynist, because they bandy about the word so much it cant have any meaning. Misogyny means to hate or dislike women, in what universe could Dawkins' Dear Muslima be said to show he hates women? They use it because its easier to demonise someone as a Misogynist if they disagree with them. The kind of feminism she subscribes to which has so affected society is one of an eternal victim complex, they dont want to take responsibility for their own choices and actions they want to lay it on their misrepresented and distorted idea of "male patriarchy" that they believe was created to subservient women and give men all the power, rather than it being a societal system that for the majority of human history was born from biological necessity. Pointing out how absurd their house of cards is is not irrelevant.

No, it's just off topic. If Edx would start a topic that clearly states his point, that would help makes things more clear.

Im done with you carlitos, you're either trolling or you're completely lost. I have stated my "point" various times in different ways and its been accepted by various people, even by you. If you accept the point I have highlighted, even stated again clearly on this very page, then maybe we can move on. But to act like I still havent actually done any of that at all is just insulting and just feels just like you're being obtuse for the sake of it. I was being demanded to give statistics and research and I have done that in various ways to show that there is a bias toward women to the detriment of men in society and I have done that in the subjects Im referring to (even though there's a lot more to say on all of it) Yet you ignore all of it and just ask me what my point is, again, as if I haven't said anything and as if it isnt abundantly clear by now. If you dont get it by now, you never will. I don't know what your deal is, but Im not pandering to it anymore and wasting more time on this unless you can actually show a willingness to honestly deal with my points.

any discussion of women will eventually turn into a "think of the men" session.

It's more of a general rule.

Originally Posted by edx

why wouldnt the subject turn to this? Watson and her supporters are part of a community that wants to justify their fear of men. You cant do that without bringing up the distorted rape and domestic violence statistics, you cant do that without bringing up schrodinger's rapist or some variation thereof. Again, the entire drama here is to justify their fear as reasonable because if they cannot justify the fear is reasonable then their fear is merely irrational and paranoid and shouldn't be taken seriously and they know it. Their rationale is built on a house of cards that easily tumbles once you give it the slightest scrutiny, let alone dig into the problem of just how much fear mongering there is against men towards rape and domestic violence in our society and how deep that goes. That there has been for years an effort to broaden the definition of rape more and more and water down the definition of domestic violence so it can include more women so their statistics for how many women are victims goes up and therefore people like watson can quote them to justify their fear, but fail to acknowledge that by doing so they are even further ignoring and marginalising the abuse of men from women that is just as bad if not worse in various ways. This is why she twisted the joke tweet mocking her in her slate article into a serious threat of assault, with not even a hint of a possibility acknowledging that he might not have been serious. That is why she claims hate mail she gets are "rape threats" when most of all of them, while not nice, are not "rape threats" which their own communities logic and behaviour proves. That is why she claimed dawkins is a misogynist, because they bandy about the word so much it cant have any meaning. Misogyny means to hate or dislike women, in what universe could dawkins' dear muslima be said to show he hates women? They use it because its easier to demonise someone as a misogynist if they disagree with them. The kind of feminism she subscribes to which has so affected society is one of an eternal victim complex, they dont want to take responsibility for their own choices and actions they want to lay it on their misrepresented and distorted idea of "male patriarchy" that they believe was created to subservient women and give men all the power, rather than it being a societal system that for the majority of human history was born from biological necessity. Pointing out how absurd their house of cards is is not irrelevant.

That's not a 'think of the men' argument, that's a 'cult of victimization' argument.

Not that that point says anything about the validity of it one way or the other.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

In other news I got a "rape threat" by apparently some feminist I pissed off. And Im nobody, I wonder if I made a name for myself I could get more of these and then make the same claims Watson does, but about feminists.

...really? So you cant link to a video, or blog that contains swearing either? So what about youtube in general? Since Im capable of stumbling on a video that contains swearing, even if the video linked to doesnt contain it. And Im sure Rebecca Watson's blogs or presentations where she's quoted her hate mail have been linked to plenty of times... So Im pretty sure there's plenty of violations of rule 10 all over this forum. Ah well.. if anyone wants to see the "rape threat" send me a PM...

...really? So you cant link to a video, or blog that contains swearing either? So what about youtube in general? Since Im capable of stumbling on a video that contains swearing, even if the video linked to doesnt contain it. And Im sure Rebecca Watson's blogs or presentations where she's quoted her hate mail have been linked to plenty of times... So Im pretty sure there's plenty of violations of rule 10 all over this forum. Ah well.. if anyone wants to see the "rape threat" send me a PM...

I didn't see the image but as for other links, I've seen others that included rule 10 words and there was no issue. People do though, as a courtesy, say a link is NSFW so people have a warning.

...really? So you cant link to a video, or blog that contains swearing either? So what about youtube in general? Since Im capable of stumbling on a video that contains swearing, even if the video linked to doesnt contain it. And Im sure Rebecca Watson's blogs or presentations where she's quoted her hate mail have been linked to plenty of times... So Im pretty sure there's plenty of violations of rule 10 all over this forum. Ah well.. if anyone wants to see the "rape threat" send me a PM...

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

It was not a rape threat. Telling a person that you pity the person who undertakes a particular sexual position with you - with no mention of force, persuasion or coercion - is in no way identifiable as a rape threat.

It was not a rape threat. Telling a person that you pity the person who undertakes a particular sexual position with you - with no mention of force, persuasion or coercion - is in no way identifiable as a rape threat.

The message read: "Well I feel sorry for whoever ***** you in the ******* you dirty little **** ****** *******."

Unfortunately some of its message is lost when you remove most of the words.

It isnt a rape "threat", you're quite right, which is why I put it in quotes. It is however clearly referring to rape/assault, otherwise it actually makes no sense whatsoever. Since I havent even indicated I enjoy anal sex or even that I am homosexual, nor is the subject at all relevant to anything I have said and is completely out of the blue, she is therefore referring to "feeling sorry" for someone that is forcibly performing a sex act on me. I am sorry that we need to break down brainless hate mail written by retards on YT but there we are. I don't know for sure, but maybe it was this comment tree that promoted the reply as it wasnt long after the block that I got the message.

The point here is that the reason I am saying its a "rape threat" with my tongue in my cheek is because of Rebecca Watsons very broad definition of what a "rape threat" is, but that also her and her supporters dont seem to care much about jokes trivialising death or murder or sexual violence against their critics so long as its them that are making them, and they dont care when radical feminists talk about eugenics and murder getting off on not being classified as a hate group simply because the owner of the websites says she doesn't hate men when the SPLC called her up and asked her. I talked about this on the other page.

I have never met Rebecca Watson, nor have I ever attended a TAM. However, friends and fans of Randi may want to read this. I do not have a dog in whatever disagreement occurred.

Edx' claims:

Quote:

My position is that there are so many things that show there is a bias toward women particularly at the expense of men, and that issues concerning men as a whole are more likely to go unnoticed, trivialised or mocked.

As noted many times in my posts, Edx would be better served by just concisely stating his case, preferably in a new thread. This one is a dog's breakfast.

Edx would be better served by just concisely stating his case, preferably in a new thread. This one is a dog's breakfast.

If some mod wants to move it, then they are quite able to do so. Ive already concisely stated my case and my point, you even previously agreed to that sentence you just copy and pasted from me so Im not sure why you insist on asking me over and over to state it again. I was asked to give a bunch of data and research for some of my claims, I have done that in various ways and its been just under a week and no one has responded to any of it. Now I dont much care, certainly means I can get on with more important things and through looking things up I am more well read on the topic than I was before.

If I was going to continue to talk about it, I might point out things like this. A 4 year old boy accused of sexual harassment toward his female teacher or two young male teens sent to jail for engaging in a reciprocal schoolyard game called "slap butt day", where the girls in question didnt even consider themselves victims and were even taking part themselves, [source], as just two of the many more such examples of the bias against men, toward women.Or where Kenneth Clarke the UK Justice Secretary getting into major trouble and the opposition demanding he be fired for having the gall to suggest that a violent rape was not the same as an 18 year old having "consensual" sex with a 15 year old and that "date rape" was a very wide topic and not all cases were as serious as others, you know, like not all assaults are as serious as others. You would think victims of real violent rape would be insulted at the suggestion that what they experienced is just as serious as a "rape" of a 15 year old consensually having sex with an 18 year old boyfriend, but apparently certain feminists have managed to convince us that that black is white and up is down. In the same way as they put women who experienced serious violence at the hands of their boyfriend or husband in the same set of statistics as a women who felt bad after being ignored for a period of time. I think that kind of logic is extremely belittling and insulting to victims but apparently Im just a rape supporter and hate women according to people like Rebecca Watson so what do I know.

If some mod wants to move it, then they are quite able to do so. Ive already concisely stated my case and my point, you even previously agreed to that sentence you just copy and pasted from me so Im not sure why you insist on asking me over and over to state it again. I was asked to give a bunch of data and research for some of my claims, I have done that in various ways and its been just under a week and no one has responded to any of it. Now I dont much care, certainly means I can get on with more important things and through looking things up I am more well read on the topic than I was before.

If I was going to continue to talk about it, I might point out things like this. A 4 year old boy accused of sexual harassment toward his female teacher or two young male teens sent to jail for engaging in a reciprocal schoolyard game called "slap butt day", where the girls in question didnt even consider themselves victims and were even taking part themselves, [source], as just two of the many more such examples of the bias against men, toward women.Or where Kenneth Clarke the UK Justice Secretary getting into major trouble and the opposition demanding he be fired for having the gall to suggest that a violent rape was not the same as an 18 year old having "consensual" sex with a 15 year old and that "date rape" was a very wide topic and not all cases were as serious as others, you know, like not all assaults are as serious as others. You would think victims of real violent rape would be insulted at the suggestion that what they experienced is just as serious as a "rape" of a 15 year old consensually having sex with an 18 year old boyfriend, but apparently certain feminists have managed to convince us that that black is white and up is down. In the same way as they put women who experienced serious violence at the hands of their boyfriend or husband in the same set of statistics as a women who felt bad after being ignored for a period of time. I think that kind of logic is extremely belittling and insulting to victims but apparently Im just a rape supporter and hate women according to people like Rebecca Watson so what do I know.

It was not a rape threat. Telling a person that you pity the person who undertakes a particular sexual position with you - with no mention of force, persuasion or coercion - is in no way identifiable as a rape threat.

In other news I got a "rape threat" by apparently some feminist I pissed off. And Im nobody, I wonder if I made a name for myself I could get more of these and then make the same claims Watson does, but about feminists.

So if somebody calls you a fag, you consider that a rape threat because you don't like butt sex?

__________________“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”—Mark Twain

Still no one has replied to anything I posted, after all the crap I got on this thread I cant help but wonder if its because some people would have to concede that maybe I might have a point in at least the subjects Im talking about.

Still no one has replied to anything I posted, after all the crap I got on this thread I cant help but wonder if its because some people would have to concede that maybe I might have a point in at least the subjects Im talking about.

Still no one has replied to anything I posted, after all the crap I got on this thread I cant help but wonder if its because some people would have to concede that maybe I might have a point in at least the subjects Im talking about.

Having only ever skimmed over the whole elevatorgate and the fallout from it, I often wonder if the evil, 'orrible, lascivious creature who dared to flirt with a woman in an elevator has ever been identified?

__________________"You're entitled to your opinion; you're just not entitled to have it taken seriously when you can offer no evidence to support it." - Garrison